World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I don't know the woman, I'm just against improper use of science.
Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.
Let's do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.
Id love studies with apatite and fluoride combined, I'd also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.
We're practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let's see if we can come up with something even better now that we're not illiterate morons.
There are many recent studies on the efficacy of flouride, both mouth rinse and paste from the last two decades, as well as studies on the efficacy of essential oil rinses (Listerine) and stabilized chlorine (Closys).
There have been developments in flouride compositions as well, such as Stannus flouride, which has been fully stabilized and no longer stains the teeth like it once did. It brings with it advantages over the older Sodium Flouride, such as better resilience against low pH, reduction of temperature sensitivity from its ability to fill in the microtubules of the teeth, and an antibacterial effect from being stabilized to zinc, which remains on the teeth and kills caries causing bacteria for many hours after use.
I highly disagree that science is not advancing regarding dental solutions, we are very much not playing with voodoo. I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It's capitalism, basically.
To give a highly encapsulated version of an ideal dental regimen based on modern science, it would be thus:
This last step is is important for a few reasons.
If this protocol is followed diligently twice a day, you will effectively entirely prevent caries causing bacteria from being able to proliferate enough to actually cause plaque buildup whatsoever, and you will likely never get another cavity for the rest of your life. Especially if combined with xylitol mints after meals, which caries causing bacteria uptake thinking it's a sugar they can digest and use as fuel, but in fact cannot be, causing them to die. It also promotes saliva production, which increases pH and flushes the teeth with minerals.
Lastly, the reason we treat water with flouride is for the sake of those unable to afford access to, or proper knowledge of, flouride containing dental products as described above. If everyone did the above protocol, there would be no need to fluoridate water, but as that is unlikely, water fluoridation is a compromise.
See, I'm willing to go with you on your other points, but I don't buy this at all.
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive. My wife insisted on flying back home for all her dentistry after a catastrophic incident in the US (bad infection after unneeded root canal almost lead to sepsis). Personally I have nearly perfect teeth, or I did until recently. After the first examination I mentioned I had changed dental insurance, the dentist stepped out for a moment, came back, and suddenly I had 4 cavities that must be drilled at once. That was an eye-opening experience. My next dentist found nothing of course.
I don't like the theory of adding compounds to water without a very, VERY compelling reason, particularly one with no alternatives. Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better, but adding it to water? If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression? That's actually not bad either, but can lead down a slippery slope. It's less a concern for America, but I can imagine a communist country doing that with 0 reflection.
I'll take up closys, I use a hydroxyapetite toothpaste that I find very powerful, alongside listerine.
There are a lot of things we could add to water that would help everyone, magnesium is at the very top of that list (as someone who grew up with rural water, city water is horrifically deficient here), but let's just add that as a secondary supplement, it gets better scrutiny, but mostly, and here's the real kicker:
IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FORMULATION, WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYONE'S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE!
I don't disagree with that at all. The amount of false dental procedures done in the US for monetary gain is quite high, making it a hassle to find an ethical dentist.
I think that would be a better solution in theory, but the cost of doing that en-masse across the country would be quite a bit higher than putting it in the drinking water (Single bulk purchase of fluoride with only a single person needed to be hired to add it to the water supply Vs. Millions of bottles of fluoride rinse being either being created by the government or contracted out to a company, which is then regularly distributed to schools, likely via truck, requiring hundreds to thousands of new employees to manage and run an operation of that size).
I can't imagine a bill for that program being passed in this political climate. I mean, we can't even get lead out of the water in many communities, and that's far, FAR more dangerous. Not to mention PFAS now being in the water supply. Also, while that solution would help children, what about adults who cannot afford to buy fluoride rinses?
We have pretty solid evidence that shows when a community stops fluoridating their water, the poorest in that community have a pretty steep increase in preventable dental and oral health outcomes.
There is also some tentative evidence that high levels of fluoride could have negative effects to pregnant women, babies, and small developing children (potential lowering of IQ), but it's pretty weak evidence that hasn't been verified, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to adults.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don't think it's too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
The places that do fluoridate their water do so publicly, is regulated and tested (and can be personally verified at home with a test kit), and adds the least amount possible to achieve the positive outcome, which comes out to a very small dose (many communities have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at higher levels)
That part is going a bit too far into conspiratorial thinking, IMHO, coming from someone who used to be a full on religious conspiracy theorist prepper. If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn't personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
The risk to a government doing that is absolutely immense, as the now modified water would be accessible and testable by the entire population that drinks it, and unless there are suddenly new chemicals that are undetectable by known scientific methods, the chances of a government being able to pull that off are below nill, and detection would result in a scandal beyond imagining.
Btw, asked gpt4o this question:
So your argument is somewhat flawed, poor people tend to be less flouridated, so the people who need it get it the least.
This is the wrong way to distribute this, please stop and find a better way, MOST IMPORTANTLY A CONTROLLED WAY, and work out a precise dosage schedule while you're at it, none of this ignorant yeehaw cowboy shit where each town rolls a dice.
Rural areas tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, while also not being connected to a municipal water (it's more economical to have your own well in rural areas).
Just because those people don't have access to fluoridated water does not mean the solution is to then take away fluoridated water from the poor who do live in areas with municipal water.
The minute that's successfully done across the country, I would be in favor of removing fluoride from water, but only after all economically disadvantaged have that better option in place, and they are adequately educated with better habits to utilize it. I think you'll find that it is much easier said than done.
Everyone on this argument seems to be posting a rather religious position and rationalizing backwards.
Europe has vastly better dental health in every possible way, without flouridation.
It's not working, cut the shit.
I would suggest trying to start a grass roots movement to lower dental healthcare costs in the US to be closer to EU levels, as well as push for those subsidized fluoride rinses you mentioned. It'll be a long road, but it has to start somewhere, and you seem passionate enough about the subject to lead the charge.
I mean, my solution is just to leave the US, which worked for me.
It's not just lowering dental costs btw, but you're right, taking money out of dentistry would probably give the most improvement to medical outcomes.
I disagree with your risk calculus. We are talking about something so 100% fundamental to human life, water. This is something we should consider absolutely sacrosanct, and a human right to all. It should be unthinkable to alter or modify it in any way imho.
I'm not trying to "Precious bodily fluids" here.
, but this is one thing we all should have personal choice over.
You're right it's more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
I agree, which is why I don't want any tampering or adultering of water to begin with. I trust now that the levels are appropriate, but your whole argument boils down to "we're adding stuff to water because it's convenient", which is true, but a lot of things are convenient.
Let's have people take new referenda on adding them, flouride was added in the early 1900s without any political process.
I say this as someone who grew up in areas with truly horrible water quality from agricultural and industrial runoff, that was still declared "perfectly fine" by a dramatically corrupt local government. I also lived near the town where "A Civil Action" took place, and the water tasted funny there too (not terribly bad, but still weird).
If you don't add chlorine to your water supply, it has a tendency to harbour some much worse stuff. Like cholera. And the level to which water is artificially fluorinated is much lower that it is naturally in many places. Just 'pure' water would be a terrible idea
Chlorine absolutely makes sense.
Chlorine is our anion gap, we have so much more than you can imagine, it's literally in salt.
Flourine is less common, saying some places have a lot is like saying arsenic is fine because chile has high concentrations. The Pampas actually is known for their wines and they have massive arsenic.